The Delhi High Court has ruled that the identity of a person, who had been the subject of a criminal case while a minor, must not be revealed at any time as it will defeat the purpose of juvenile justice law.
The court noted that the purpose of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act was to ensure that no stigma is attached to juveniles who are in conflict with law , and that the minors receive the “protective umbrella” of the Act.
RPF Constable Removed By Railway Board
A bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Rekha Palli passed the ruling in a case wherein a constable was “removed from service” in the Reserved Police Force (RPF) by the Railway Board because he had failed to disclose details of the criminal case filed against him in regards to an incident that occurred when he was 12 years old.
The court has set aside the order of the Railway Board passed in May calling it “unsustainable” and has directed that the petitioner be reinstated within 12 weeks along with all the relevant benefits, but excluding back wages.
The bench held that the contention of the Centre and the Ministry of Railways that the man was obligated to disclose such information was “contrary to the very spirit of the Act”.
Gross Breach of Confidentiality
According to the order, even when such information was brought to light by virtue of a police verification process, it must not be revealed as the incident occurred when the person was a juvenile. The judges ruled that such disclosure was “a gross breach of confidentiality contemplated under the Act.”
The man’s counsel stated that the criminal proceedings against him had been conducted at a Juvenile Justice Board in Bihar’s Gopalganj area and he had been acquitted in August 2015.
The lawyer pointed out that as his client was a juvenile during the time the alleged offences of rioting and attempt to murder took place, it was not necessary for him to disclose such information.
Duty To Furnish Details
The government’s counsel however argued that it was the man’s duty to furnish all relevant details including that of the criminal case pending against him while filling up the verification form which he had not done.
He noted that the pendency of the case had come to the notice of the authorities only when the police verification process was done.
The man had submitted his application for the post in 2011 and had been called to submit an attestation form in May 2014.
